This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a hard-hitting newspaper, with top-notch reporting, writing and editorial work. To call it a "tabloid," as one Wikipedia "editor" sought to do, is libelous. It is far less a "tabloid" than the Washington Post and New York Times, where editorials with pseudo-literary affectations are routinely featured on the front page in the guise of news.
The term "non-union newspaper" is bizarre, because very few major newspaper operate under unions anymore. Is there any reason this should be here?
There really needs to be a separate article for the Baltimore Examiner. Yes, it is owned by the same company and has the same format, but the articles, staff, and distribution systems are all different. The fact that the newspaper masthead adorns an office building in downtown Baltimore also indicates a separate physical/geographic identity and base of operations from the paper in Washington, or the one in San Francisco. -- Apostlemep12 14:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI Re "This is a hard-hitting newspaper, with top-notch reporting, writing and editorial work.". https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/ has a reasonably objective analysis of the current status. Extremely "loaded" headlines; 100% "Right" POV (no balance); frequent omitting of inconvenient facts that don't fit that POV. Another very bad symptom (re their reliability as a news source) is their "war" with fact-checking sites (Politifact and Snopes), which they vilify. [Example: "Move over, PolitiFact. You are no longer the most hilariously incompetent and obviously dishonest fact-checking outfit in town."] I'm not prepared to decide what would be a properly sourced, and neutral POV, addition to the article re this; so for now I just place this here as an FYI. ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 20:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning the political position of the editorial board? They are all conservative, especially by D.C. standards. When it first came out as the Examiner they all wrote conservative editorials. What's the policy on mentioning political positions of publications? I see that it could be problematic because it is hard to assess, and some terms are used pejoratively, but I think it's something people want to know about publications; there's also a difference between papers like the Examiner with conservative editors but neutral news (they pull most of their stories off the wire) and something like the Washington Times or Village Voice where the whole paper tends toward one side. IceJew 07:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 14:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Are public figures available to provide for a comparison between the circulation of the Examiner and the Express? It'd be nice to see it move out of the See also and into a more full-fledged statement in the prose above. MrZaius talk 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I posted to a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight that I'd like some input on if anyone's interested. I think the website will ultimately go the way of ehow.com, but I think there is and will be confusion that this new website is related to the print newspapers owned by the same company...Clarity Media. I've also noticed that many of the DCExaminer.com links are dead, and at least some of the live Baltimore article links appear to now go to examiner.com. Flowanda | Talk 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I wonder about this sentence (the link in the citation is broken, or seems to be):
Are there really "exclusively white" neighborhoods in Washington? I find that hard to believe. Did they mean to say "delivered exclusively in affluent, majority-white neighborhoods"? That would make more sense but there is now no way to check the source. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The material here seems to be mainly minor complaints, nothing illegal or even unjournalistic is charged. How about removing the whole section? Kitfoxxe ( talk) 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The meanings of the word "conservative" depend on where in the world you are. A conservative in Finland would be considered a liberal in the US. Right wing is neutrally descriptive of relativity to the US political spectrum and as I understand US politics conservatives are on the right and not the left or the center. This is why "right wing" is better for an international readership.
On the issue of ownership by one of the world's richest men (partial or full), which an ip address user has continually tried to remove this from the lead, it matters not that the reference is already in the article. The lead is intended to summarise key points from the article and the ownership of a newspaper is highly relevant to its news and opinion agenda and is included in other newspaper articles.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You need a source to say he is "one of the richest men in the world. Replacing deleted unsourced material without providing a source is vs. wikipedia policy. There are a couple thousand billionaires in the world. It's subjective WP:OR for an editor to decide he is "one of the richest" and probably some sort of POV against people who are rich owning newspapers or something. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
/* Distribution */ Reference to webpage added - Adds reference to webpage, "Alex. Model Newspaper Delivery Law" and moved existing statute reference to "Code 9-14" . - This was done because the webpage explains the logic behind the Alexandria ordinance. The subject matter does not rise to the level of a Wikipedia article or even a section in the existing article, and so would either be an external link or a reference. Since it only pertains to the city code (as far as the Wikipedia article is concerned), it was linked as an in-line citation. The .pdf copy of code 9-14 was moved to those words, since "model newspaper ordinance" now has its own citation. - Unitacx ( talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the line "It lacks a copy desk, instead using section editors to handle the copy-editing function" as it's not only unsourced but completely untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.127.127 ( talk) 18:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
BS24 is on indefinite block, but likely to return as a sock. [4] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The section
has a problem, as illustrated below:
Even though I have tried to put a space between the 'a' and the 'conservative' in 'aconservative', even though it "looks OK" when you look at it in the WikiPedia window, if you copy it and paste it into another program, like a word processor or an email program, the space disappears and all you get is 'aconservative'.
I do not know what is going on. Perhaps it is a problem with the WikiPedia software.
I did make sure that there are no invisible characters in my correction. I "zapped gremlins" using BBEdit.
I do not know what is going on.
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The lead puts undue emphasis on the Examiner's conservative ties/views. Half the lead is devoted to it; it reads as if we're going out of our way to point out the conservative links. If there's reliable sourcing that the Examiner is conservative then this should be communicated in a word or two ("conservative" or "politically conservative"). If it's more complicated then that then I'd be okay with a single sentence explaining the situation but no more. A detailed explanation can always go in the body. And btw I'm uncertain whether the DCist source is reliable. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved ( WP:SNOW) ( page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 12:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner → Washington Examiner – I don't know if there's a written guideline, but the titles of articles about publications appear to consistently use whatever is on the publication's nameplate (masthead). The New York Times, but Chicago Tribune. The Guardian, but Daily Mail. And so on. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 31-03-2019 by TWS92485.
|
That an outlet that purports to be a credible news outlet publishes climate change misinformation is WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
"It is, really."
You've also watered down appropriate terms, Niteshift36, for the Examiner's inflammatory rhetoric, i.e.
lam·baste lamˈbāst,lamˈbast/ "they lambasted the report as a gross distortion of the truth"
So you see, your substituting the word "criticized" for "lambasted" minimizes an accurate description of their deliberate phraseology. The term you removed correctly characterizes the Examiner's harsher language. The same is true of "McCarthyite."
McCarthyism (From Wikionary)
"The intense opposition to, and fear and suspicion of, Communism, particularly in the United States during the 1950s." "Hypernym: anticommunism" Etymology McCarthy + -ite Adjective McCarthyite (comparative more McCarthyite, superlative most McCarthyite) Of or pertaining to McCarthyism
Their editorializing to label anti-global warming activism with "commies under the bed," rhetoric is nothing short of the term I'd used. A spade needs to be called a spade. Wikipedia is not censored. Activist ( talk) 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/whitehousedits/status/1202605873052430338 -- Jibal ( talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
There are factual changes that need editing:
Change "Publisher" label to "Chairman" Change "Editor" label to "Editor in Chief" and change value "Seth Mandel" to "Hugo Gurdon" [1] Change "Managing Editor" value from "Philip Klein" to "Toby Harnden" [2] Remove "News editor" label and value Change "Opinion editor" label to "Executive Editor/Commentary Editor" and value to "Philip Klein" [3]
References
The page is locked so I suggest these factual changes on the Talk page in the hopes of getting it updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentDPayne ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The page refers to the Washington Examiner as a "tabloid". Previous conversation on this talk page indicates the use of this term was tied to the physical size of the publication. However, the publication is currently a standard magazine size of about 9" by 11.5", which conforms more closely to the definition of a "magazine" ( /info/en/?search=Magazine). As such, the first line should be changed to say "The Washington Examiner is an American conservative news website and weekly magazine..." Davidlindsey0118 ( talk) 19:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add characterizations of The Washington Examiner as conservative or right-leaning to the lead sentence. This issue has already been discussed at length and your edits will be reverted. StargazerAW ( talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The circulation stat of 45,000 is not referenced (anecdotally it seems a bit high to me, though perhaps I'm underestimating Washington Examiner's reach of late). Is the only source that the publisher mentioned this as a target for the publication several years ago? My apologies if I'm missing anything. Dsakey1978 ( talk) 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Several editors have been taking exception with the section of this article describing the Washington Examiner's editorial stance toward climate change. In response, they have added a refutation showing how incorrect this editorial stance is. Unfortunately, the reliable source selected for the refutation does not mention the Washington Examiner. An analogy would be if CNN's Wikipedia article mentioned that CNN was pro-gun control, after which an editor refuted this editorial stance with text touting the virtues of gun ownership, supported by a source completely unrelated to CNN and which never mentions CNN. Should we go through every biography listed at w:Category:Anti-vaccination activists and find a reliable source saying these people are all idiots (citing a source which doesn't specifically mention any of them)? This goes beyond WP:NPOV into a new world where editors can roam from Wikipedia article to Wikipedia article looking for ideas they disagree with, and then add an opposing opinion supported by a reliable source completely unrelated to the Wikipedia article in question. The input of others would be welcomed. Magnolia677 ( talk) 15:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Pointing out what wikipedia policy says is not a "ridiculous demand". Sarewitz criticized what Barone said, no need for the article to get sidetracked. NPalgan2 ( talk) 18:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Mentioning that the paper denies climate changeis not the problem. Quoting their bullshit reasoning without the context of a refutation from the mainstream is the problem. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
All religions are by Wikipedia standards fringe theories, because they make claims not supported by science- no. when religions make scientific claims that aren't supported by science, those are the fringe theories that need to be labeled as such. see e.g. creation science.
Has a consensus been reached that opposition to climate change is to be considered a fringe theory- it's here at scientific consensus on climate change. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Is the CRU e-mail controversy really that important to this periodical? I am struggling to identify why there is so much emphasis on it in the article. It's not surprising that they would come down in support of climate change denial. Most conservative publications in the US have some affinity for climate change denial. But why go on about this one instance of this? I can point to a wide variety of op-eds where they promote such denialism. Secondary sources seem to consider their ideological approach as obvious given the ownership and the personalities of the editorial room. Is pressing on this properly contextualized? jps ( talk) 21:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
RS have clearly described the paper as a tabloid even after it ceased being a physical tabloid. Andre 🚐 15:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
a conservative free daily tabloid), 2009 again (
a daily tabloid), 2013 (lamenting the ceasing of production of the tabloid newspaper). The only one that is more recent is a first-person opinion piece from Slate ( WP:RSOPINION), but does indeed refer to it as
tabloid-style. Nevertheless, that's zero WP:RS for the claim, a particular oddity if we're making it in the first sentence of the lead. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)